Originally Posted by Direckshun
The idea is to free the parties of control by the few haves to the disadvantage of the many have-nots.
As a candidate, if you know your financing is already set for your next election by the time you first step foot in your office, and that that financing will be equivalent to what your opponent receives, then you do not have to pander to the super-wealthy for financing like you have to now.
Would you also silence giant news organizations (or limit them to $2000 worth of coverage)? Or is it OK if the Rupert Murdochs of the world can dramatically outspend all of those who don't have the luxury of a news network in their portfolio?
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will